"Frank Ellermann" <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Simon Josefsson wrote: > >> I would even consider a requirement that in order to move beyond >> Proposed Standard, a protocol needs to have a free implementation >> available. > > Tricky, e.g. my BOCU-1 implementation is "free" in a certain sense, > but I'm also sure that I don't have a license. Do you refer to the IBM patent on BOCU? As far as I have understood, IBM promised to grant a free patent license to people who requested it, but people never received a license despite requesting one. If this is accurate, I think it is a good example of a technology that should not be standardized and should not be promoted by the community. BOCU would also be a good example of why promises to grant a free patent license to those who request it is insufficient. I think the solution here is to come up with a reasonable definition of "free" that would fail to be met in the specific case of BOCU. I don't think it is an impossible problem to solve. How about 'Should be possible to implement without having to pay for a patent license'? /Simon _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf